> > > I refuse it because it will be supported by exactly 1 driver in the > > > kernel - gpio-keys. It is the only driver that allows shut half of the > > > "device" (because in reality it is a group of disjoint devices). It is > > > the only case when "muting" a button means that IRQ is shut off abnd > > > thus CPU can continue to sleep if that button is pressed. For all other > > > devices that have 1 inettrupt per device, you still have to wake up, > > > because you don't know whether the button that generated event is > > > "important" or not. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > > Now, there is a issue of waking up userspace task, additional scheduling > > > and keeping CPU running longer than necessary for "uninteresting" keys. > > > This can be solved by implementing a subscription model which allows > > > filtering uninteresing events on a per-client basis at evdev level. > > > > Right. And for gpio_keys, this would be dine on the driver level. > > But the semantics are different - if done on driver level you'd be > affecting _all_ consumers of the device; what I want to be done only > affects owner of the file descriptor. Well, if _all_ consumers decide to ignore some key, we should be able to ignore it at driver level. And actually it may make some sense -- I do not think disabling irq during runtime is worth the effort, but disabling wakeup source and getting rid of unneccessary wakeup when system is suspended is probably worth it. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
